Publisher

Publishing partner

Partners

Differences in Perception of the Participants in the Management Process and Its Real Trajectory

Olaf Flak, Ph.D., University of Silesia in Katowice, ul. Bankowa 12, 40-007 Katowice, Poland, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..Adrian Pyszka, Ph.D., University of Economics in Katowice, ul. 1 Maja 50, 40-287 Katowice, Poland, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Abstract

The aim of the paper is to present results of the research that was focused on managers’ behaviours. We tried to discover the main diﬀerences between the real trajectory and percepton of managers in the feld of two types of management processes. In the frst part of the paper there is a theoretcal foundaton of process management and conclusions that led to a research model. In the second part we present the state of art in the feld of human percepton theories. Then, we describe assumptons of the research and methods of gathering data. What is important in the case of research method, an observaton and a survey were used. The observaton was done using the online management tools. During the research, managers were given a small project to lead. We recorded their actons and when their projects were completed, we asked them how they had acted. As a result of the research, there are three examples of descripton of managers’ behaviours and their percepton. In the introducton we formulated two hypotheses and on the grounds of the research result we prove both statements in conclusion of the paper.

Introducton

It is said that “the legacy of the past is always shaping the emerging future” (Petgrew, 1997, p. 339). The process-oriented holistc organizaton was found as a new form in which the business process may be perceived as the basic organizatonal construct. Although in quite old management schools the process existed as a term, process management implies a complex focus on business processes. They tend to be integrated with one another. The increasing organizatonal complexity of processes results in new demands on a frm’s informaton management. This complexity also needs to be managed (Seltsikas, 1999, p. 181).

Facing the importance and vital role of process management in the development and organizatonal change of companies the queston arises how diﬀerent managers perform in their projects or linear actvites (Rohloﬀ, 2011, p. 384). It is frequently forgoten that everything starts from philosophy of an acton that means a systematc way of thinking and doing. Actons permeate an organizaton. Everything the organizaton does and considers is aﬀected by the philosophy that does not change very ofen. The next step is a business model, which is the framework for identfying how a business creates, delivers, and extracts value (Dowdle, Stevens, McCarty and Daly, 2005, p. 58). In the paper we focus on two items deriving from a business model: methods and tools of management (Dowdle et al., 2005, p. 58). These areas create the basis of research of process management in small projects.

In the paper there is a presentaton of results of the research in the feld of process management. Although there are exceptons, the general method of the research might be treated as a case study. The reason is there were only 8 managers who took part in the research. The main task for managers was to prepare an implementaton manual for an innovatve management tool. There were two ways of collectng data: an observaton and a survey. On the one hand, in the paper there is a short draf of real facts gathered by the observaton method. The observaton was conducted using online management tools implemented in www.transistorshead.com (TH management tools). On the other hand, we surveyed the managers who used the tools just afer fnishing their projects.

Management tools that base on the system of organizatonal terms (Flak, 2008, pp. 13-21), allowed to do the research on processes and give answers to questons such as what happens in the organizaton, how it happens, what results are obtained from processes and what the rhythm of the processes is.

The main goal of the paper is to discover the main diﬀerences between the real trajectory and percepton of managers in the feld of two types of management processes. We formed the following hypotheses:

H1. Managers are not conscious of most of their actvites in management process.

H2. The scale of a project, labelled by the number of processes, does not inﬂuence the level of managers’ consciousness.

In the frst part of the paper there is some theoretcal foundaton of process management. On grounds of theories some conclusions were drawn that led to an abstract model of the research. In the next part, we presented the state of art in the feld of human percepton. This part in combinaton with the process management background allowed us to verify hypotheses.

In the middle part of the paper there is a descripton of the observaton and questonnaire profles and there is also a descripton of comparisons between percepton of managers and the real trajectory of processes.

Theoretcal background of management processes

The scale of complexity can be drawn as symbolic processes mixed with one another. A large number of processes leads to process contributons and to obtain or to lose strategic goals of organizatons. In some period of tme strategic goals result in creatng desirable future states that are called visions of entrepreneurs, managers and companies’ owners. These correlatons are shown in the Figure 1.

Time is a central point in preoccupaton of the process management. The dynamics of the process is only possible to reveal with temporality and a tmeline. It allows discovering the relatonships between the past, present and the future. What is more, there are also relatonships, called interrelatonships, between diﬀerent levels of context of emerging processes. These relatonships are also between eﬀects of processes (Petgrew, 1997, p. 345).

A well-known and largely used practce in the feld of processes is Business Process Management (BPM). The management practce encompasses all actvites of identfcaton, defniton, analysis, design, executon, monitoring, measurement and contnuous improvement of business processes (Rohloﬀ, 2011, p. 383).

In order to close the gap and provide methodological support for a BPM assessment an analysis on obtainable methods for an assessment was undertaken based on academic work and industry practce (Rohloﬀ, 2011, p. 392).

Inital – processes are not defned; schedules, quality and costs are not predictable

Managed – there is a need for identfcaton because of event approach to management

Defned – only strategically relevant processes are documented according to reference processes books

Quanttatve Managed – there is contnuous measurement and adjustment of processes performance; there is also a strong impact on implementaton controlling

Optmizing – Best practces are being shared, there is also a benchmarking in order to optmize all processes

Another background of the research is an additonal approach to process management that is called Knowledge Management System (KMS). Process maps are a key element of the KMS to facilitate some issues more eﬀectvely than other approaches (Keane, Barber and Munive-Hernandez, 2007, p. 134). In the next secton of the paper there is a descripton of how this approach was used in building the TH management tools.

In papers that concern the topic of process management we can fnd many defnitons of the process. It is possible to quote a part of the research into associatons with processes. The interviewers enumerated words as followed (Petgrew, 1997): “ﬂow of events, chronology, mechanism, unfolding, two forces interactng, tme, language, context, outcomes, linking things together, individuals and collectveness, history, consistent story, change, long period.” (p. 338) Taking into consideraton these associatons there is stll a strong need to defne what the process really is.

Projectng the system of organizatonal terms, which was mentoned above as a basis of empiric research presented in this paper, we assumed that the process of management is a collecton of sequental actvites with causal correlatons. These correlatons mean that the results of previous actvites are necessary for the existence of next actvites. These results become an input for the next actvites (Grajewski, 2007, p. 55). For the sake of the observaton we formed a precise defniton of the process. This defniton was presented by Petgrew. He claimed that a process is (Petgrew, 1997) “a sequence of individual and collectve events, actons, and actvites unfolding over tme in context” (p. 338).

Another perspectve, which was necessary to take into consideraton, was team management. Because the processes in the company are partly collectve, this approach let us understand how to project feature vectors of processes that we expected to achieve during the observaton. From this point of view, we can treat every process as a set of actvites that are serial or parallel. They are being caused by humans individually or collectvely. Theoretcally, these actvites are in some order and they should proceed to the desired goal. (Skrzypek and Hofman, 2010, pp. 13-14). The “goal” term is understood by us more generally. It is an expected and necessary result of these actvites.

In order to understand the eﬀect of the observaton, it is necessary to describe what the border states of processes are and how they inﬂuence a way of measurement. In the system of organizatonal terms there is an “event” term. It belongs to substantal assumptons of the system of organizatonal terms and the TH management tools. There is a strong need to quote an original defniton used in the system of organizatonal terms. According to Zieleniewski (1961, afer: Shackle, 1961, p. 4) “the event occurs when two states of the world, appointed in diﬀerent moments of tme, diﬀer one from another and this diﬀerence did not occur because of the ﬂow of tme.” (p. 4)

When we take into consideraton the observaton and management tools used to record managers’ actvites, this defniton is important because a recording process took place within a tmeline. In separate moments of tme the management tools recorded conductng management process by managers. These data records created the featured vectors of processes. The changes in the parameters inside the feature vector were treated as proceedings.

A process perspectve also involves process metrics. These are variables or measures within the feature vector. They are defned to monitor “each step” of processes. P. Seltsikas claims that metrics can identfy where a process is not correct and this informaton can be used for process improvement. He gives examples of metrics of processes such as tme and cost (Seltsikas, 1999, 191). However, these measures are very general. In the TH management tools every process has its own parameters that were shaped in the feature vector. The examples of two processes – setng goals and describing tasks – are presented in the next sectons of the paper.

This way we could meet 3 demands that concern measuring processes. Firstly, a process is usually used as a kind of logic to explain causal relatons between objects in management (in the system of organizatonal terms these objects are called “things”). Secondly, a process is a category of concepts that refers to actvites taken by individuals or teams. Thirdly, a process spreads on a sequence of events. These events, as it was mentoned above, describe how states of the world change over the tme. However, we should not take into consideraton the inﬂuence of tme (Petgrew, 1997, 169).

The assumptons of the system of organizatonal terms and the TH management tools were designed to provide an answer to questons raised by T. A. El-Diraby, C. Lima and B. Feis. They built a characteristc of the process consisted from 6 items which are as follows: (1) types of the processes, (2) main atributes of processes (other words: their features vectors), (3) doers of the processes, (4) who is involved in the processes, (5) the eﬀects of processes, (6) conditons which make the processes happen (El-Diraby, Lima and Feis, 2005, 396).

Human percepton

Percepton could be seen as the representaton (an idea or an image) of what is perceived, a basic component in the formaton of a concept, a way of conceiving something, knowledge gained by perceiving, becoming aware of something via the senses. It is important to note that a percepton process resides within the individuals and it derives from their own observatons. According to Bem’s (1972, afer: Robak and Ward, 2006, pp. 337-338) selfpercepton theory, everyone comes to know oneself in the same way that we come to know others. It means that people observe their own behaviours in a variety of situatons and make atributons about these behaviours as a parsimonious explanaton of self-defniton. By this process a human starts self-understanding derived from actvely inducing changes and observing results (DeCharms, 1983, p. 268).

The most essental assumpton is that individuals may have litle direct introspectve access to their own higher order cognitve processes (Nisbet and Wilson, 1977, afer: Robak and Ward, 2006, p. 337), because people are unaware of the existence of the stmuli that inﬂuenced their responses. They are also unaware of their responses. Following Laird and Bresler’s (1992) phenomenon of feelings and behaviours, people are simply lef to rely on the observaton of their own behaviours in order to make causal atributons about them. It is especially visible in the situaton when people feel something and report it, even when they are not aware of how they act. For the behaviourists, since individuals learn by reinforcement, the problem of how we learn such things as what we feel and who we are is partcularly tricky. The reason is that others do not know our feelings. We may learn to identfy events that are outside of our-selves by being rewarded for a correct naming of something (Robak and Ward, 2006, p. 338).

We conclude that the reinforcement process of learning and recognizing feelings and correct behaviours is an introducton to understand behaviours in organizatons, where a self -regulaton is a process in such felds as setng goals, describing tasks, engaging in goal-driven behaviours and contemplatng goal-related feedback. That is important to facilitate the atainment and maintenance of a desired end state of human beings (Lord, Diefendorﬀ, Schmidt, and Hall, 2010; Vancouver and Day, 2000 afer: Bolino, Jaron, Bachrach, 2012, p. 128). Individuals constantly plan and strive for their goals because the self-regulaton process is contnuous. Goals are being set and adjusted following to the receipt of contnual feedback process. This indicates either a success or a failure of atainment a desired end.

According to the self-regulaton model we can capture how a selfregulatory system is established and maintained, during four phases of regulatons: (1) predecisional phase - individuals adopt a mindset, consider their desires, and set goals; (2) preactonal phase – individuals switch to an implemental mindset and consider ways to accomplish their goals (people consider the desirability of their goal and potental ways to goal achievement); (3) actonal phase – individuals adopt an actonal mindset and try to obtain their goals (individuals encounter obstacles which may, depending on the importance of the goal, lead to an adjustment of eﬀort); (4) postactonal phase – associated with an evaluatve mindset (individuals evaluate their goals, determine whether they have been achieved, and make decisions about their revision - people may decide to contnue to strive for the original goal, change the goal, or disengage from it) (Gollwitzer, 1990, afer: Bolino, Jaron, Bachrach, 2012, p. 128).

Dholakia, Bagozzi and Gopinath (2007) stated that in the process of percepton it is important to identfy and provide an understanding of two specifc self-regulatory strategies: (1) formulatng an implementaton of a plan, and (2) remembering past actons. Using this explanaton the selfregulaton process is dependent on the individuals’ freedom of choice. There are two opposite situatons assigned to individuals’ decision process: (1) goals that decision makers chose for themselves – the motvatonal eﬀects lay in increasing levels of implementaton-related variables; (2) goals which were assigned to partcipants – motvatonal eﬀects additonally extended to signifcantly increasing distal goal-related variables.

According to the present state of art, there are others explanatons of selfregulaton strategies. One strategy is to formulate a detailed implementaton plan. The second strategy is to remember actons performed successfully in the past to accomplish a similar goal (Armitage, 2004; Gollwitzer, 1999, afer: Dholakia, Bagozzi and Gopinath, 2007, p. 361) claimed that retrieving selfperformed actons from the past is relatvely less eﬀortul than informaton processing involved in formulatng an implementaton plan. Remembering past actons is similar in process to recogniton memory for retrospectve tasks.

Informaton processing is supported by the atentonal processes that work in conjuncton with inference, judgment, and choice processes. As a consequence, acts of atenton may be able to prime acts of process because atenton is a content driven process. A combinaton of a content and an atenton may be able to point typically considered higher-order cognitve processes (e.g., investgate, evaluate, compare, choose, consume) (Janiszewski, Kuo, Tavassoli, 2013, p.1271).

When we consider remembering as aprocess of constructng arelatonship between the past and present, it implies choices and exclusions are made in mnemonic accounts, and suggests that other versions of the past may have been possible. Based on experience from neurology and psychoanalysis, the examinaton of remembering has been focused on the individual human subject and their acts, revealing the biological fragility and psychic constructedness of memory. Remembering is an actve reconciliaton of the past and present but it could be selectve because of some experiences that are omited from memory (traumatc or socially unacceptable experiences i.e. childhood sexual abuse) (Keightley, 2010, p. 57).

When we projected the research, we had to consider that memory is not located solely “in the mind”, as symbolic representatons or mental models. As proposed by Arnold, Shepherd and Gibbs (2008), memory is distributed. It resides in things, in relatons between things, and relatons between things and humans. In this context this implies that relatons between things and people consist of minds and things, and people and things consttute “actors in relaton” rather than “actors in themselves” (Latour, 1999; Law & Hassard, 1999; Latour, 2005, afer: Arnold, Shepherd, Gibbs, 2008, p. 48).

According to above Arnold and colleagues argue four signifcant for memory assumptons: (1) relatons between things are crucial; (2) things provide us with markers of tme, a place, a purpose, and an identty; (3) markers are historically obdurate; (4) things act, and semiotcs does not exhaust their signifcance. Arnold (2008) concluded that memory will be perceived in relaton to the things that surround us – more partcularly – in relatons between things, and between ourselves and things (memories of relatons, and sociotechnical systems).

The theoretcal foundaton described above was a background in the research of managers’ percepton of their actvites. In the next secton we present profles of the observaton and a survey that were research method used to verify hypotheses about managers percepton and the real trajectory of management processes.

Observaton and the survey profles

There were two measured processes in the research: setng goals and describing tasks. As the results of them there were two recondite things with certain features: a goal and a task (Flak, 2013, pp. 187-197). In projects that were being conducted by managers these two processes and their results shaped quite similar relatonships to the relatonships shown in the Figure 1. Processes (setng and describing) lead to results (goals and tasks). There is one difcult point in understanding this division. It is important to notce that tasks are also processes that should be taken by users (managers or their subordinates) in the future. However, describing the results we focused more on the processes than their results.

As we mentoned in the Introducton, the research on management processes was conducted by two ways of gathering data. The frst way was the observaton based on TH management tools that had been projected to play a role of an instrument for doing actons in managing a small project and to be a measurer of things and process. They are key elements described in the system of organizatonal terms (Flak, 2013, pp. 187-197). The tools were embedded in online platorm and they recorded all acton taken by users (managers of projects) during two main actvites: setng goals and describing tasks.

The TH management tools consisted of a ‘goaler’ and a ‘tasker’. Both tools were connected to each other and their functons depended on each other. The main goal of users was to prepare an implementaton handbook for an innovatve management tool. The processes were being monitored during 2 months.

The second way of gathering data was a survey for TH users. They were asked how they initated processes and how they saw themselves as managers. The survey questonnaires were flled by managers of projects just afer fnishing their projects.

This approach let us solve some research dilemmas that every researcher encounters. There are two ontological assumptons: (1) external reality of processes; (2) process parts may be examined separately. An additonal assumpton was made in the feld of epistemology. We assumed that the researcher might be separated from objects being researched (Seltsikas, 1999, p. 185).

Because in the observaton we had only a small group of TH users (8 managers) we were not able to make an assumpton that what is true at one tme and in one place may also be true at another tme and in another place. Additonally, we were conscious that our tools inﬂuenced somehow on the users’ behaviours. Thus we did not make an axiological assumpton that results of research are free of bias (Seltsikas, 1999, p. 185).

As it was mentoned in the secton above, our approach to processes based on Knowledge Management System. Except well-defned processes, an eﬀectve Knowledge Management System also needs an environment that encourages users to seek and acquire knowledge from internal and external sources. The process-based TH tools work as a driving mechanism to encourage a culture of knowledge management Keane, Barber and Munive-Hernandez, 2007, p. 135).

From the point of view of reusable knowledge, we constructed a business process patern library by collectng reusable business processes as business process paterns. These business process paterns represent the ﬂow of business actvites, and they do not depend on the TH management tools and their implementaton. As an example of a way of projectng the TH management tools and using them to collect data we used a model presented by Terai, Sawai, Sugiura, Izumi and Yamaguchi (2002). This model is presented in the Figure 2.

The project concerned preparing an implementaton and instructon manual for an innovatve management tool

Readers can fnd two prototypes of the TH management tools in the platorm htp://www.transistorshead.com. There are two managerial tools – a goaler and a tasker – that have two main functons. The frst of them is to let a manager conduct managerial processes (setng goals and describing tasks). The second functon is to record data about processes. Previous experiments in litle groups of managers, which were carried in 2012, proved that this method of research and such tools give a big number of data about managerial actvites. When this paper was being writen, the graph theory was being applied to make analysis of managerial tools in the area of setng goals and describing tasks.

So that the reader could check how the method of the research and the TH management tools work, it is possible to log in to transistorshead.com. The frst account has been created so that a reader could see the results of an anonymous manager – John Smith. A login name: john.smith, a password: smith. The second account is open to changes and any reader can create examples of goals and tasks. It is also possible to modify goals and tasks created before. A login name: anonymous.manager, a password: manager.

Percepton of management process and its real trajectory

The questons in the questonnaire covered 9 felds of similarites or diﬀerences between the real trajectory of processes and managers’ percepton. They were as follow:

The way of setng goals and describing tasks,

The way of sharing tasks among team members,

Frequency of goals changes,

Number of goals changes,

Number of tasks described for goals,

Frequency of using tools by team members,

Level of diﬀerences between goals which were set as frst and their next versions,

Inﬂuence level of goals’ changes on changes of tasks’ features,

Inﬂuence level of tasks’ changes on changes of goals’ features,

In the Tables 2, 3, 4 there are comparisons of 3 most expended paterns of management processes. The “reality” rows contain the results of the observaton. The “percepton” rows include answers given by managers who were users of the TH management tools.

For the frst manager, whose actons and answers are shown in the Table 2, it is possible to point out several disparites between the real trajectory of processes and their percepton. The manager claimed that the tasks were spread among members of his team (process: describing tasks). The real situaton, recorded by the TH tools, was contrary. The manager answered that the goals were changed rarely (process: setng goals). However, we counted frequency and we reckoned the goals were ofen changed. What is really interestng, the manager remembered that the goal no. 1 was changed only once (process: setng goals). Actually, the goaler tool recorded two changes of the goal no. 1, both of them caused by the user. It means the user did not remember an important acton such as changing a goal that was established before. Additonally, in real there were about 50% changes in goal measurements (process: setng goals). The user answered that he did only very litle changes. He was also wrong about a scale of changes that was made in goals features by changing features of tasks (process: setng tasks). On the grounds of numeric data we assessed the changes as very litle.

Other felds of the comparison were the same in the reality and the manager’s percepton. The comparison is shown in the Table 2.

Table 2. Results of the research for a manager no. 1

The way of setng goals and describing tasks

Optons

We set up goals as frst and then we described tasks.

We described tasks as frst and then we set up goals.

We acted basing on the organizatonal cycle.

Only one person set up goals and described tasks.

We acted basing on a “trial and error” rule.

Reality

x

Percepton

x

The way of sharing tasks among team members

Optons

We did not share.

Nearly everyone had the same tasks to do.

Some of members had diﬀerent tasks to do

Nearly everyone had diﬀerent tasks to do.

Everyone had diﬀerent tasks to do.

Reality

x

Percepton

x

Frequency of goals changes

Optons

Never

Rarely

Sometmes

Ofen

Always

Reality

x

Percepton

x

Bumber of goals changes

Optons

Goal 1

Goal 2

Goal 3

Goal 4

Goal 5

Reality

2

Not exist

Not exist

Not exist

Not exist

Percepton

1

No answer

No answer

No answer

No answer

Number of tasks described for goals

Optons

Goal 1

Goal 2

Goal 3

Goal 4

Goal 5

Reality

3

Not exist

Not exist

Not exist

Not exist

Percepton

3

No answer

No answer

No answer

No answer

Frequency of using tools by team members

Optons

Never

We viewed or changed the content very rarely.

We viewed or changed the content from tme to tme.

We viewed or changed the content very ofen.

We used tools all the tme when we were working.

Reality

x

Percepton

x

level of diﬀerences between goals which were set as frst and their next versions

Optons

They were unchanged.

Very litle changes.

More less a half of goal features.

Very big changes.

They were completely changed.

Reality

x

Percepton

x

Inﬂuence level of goals’ changes on changes of tasks’ features

Optons

Very low

Low

Middle

High

Very high

Reality

x

Percepton

x

Inﬂuence level of tasks’ changes on changes of goals’ features

Optons

Very low

Low

Middle

High

Very high

Reality

x

Percepton

x

Diﬀerences between percepton and real actvites of another manager are shown in the Table 3. The frst diﬀerence occurred in the feld of succession of setng goals and describing tasks. The manager did not remember an order of succession and he thought that only one person did it (the manager was default). We recorded a precise order: goals were set as frst. Contrary to the frst manager, the second manager thought he reset the frst goal twice and the recorded data contained only one change (process: setng goals). Next diﬀerence was a percepton of frequency of using tools by team members. Monitored team actvity was quite poor and we had data to assess that the team changed the content of tools very rarely (processes: setng goals and describing tasks). The manager estmated higher frequency of using tools. He did not notce how many features of goals were reset afer the frst established acton as well. He underestmated the number of features that had been changed (process: setng goals). There were also diﬀerences in inﬂuence of goals changes on tasks changes and the other way round (processes: setng goals and describing tasks). In both cases the manager evaluated the inﬂuence as higher than it was in reality.

In other areas of the comparison the manager had very precise view what he had done with TH tools. It is possible to say he was very conscious of his actvites done in the project. Details of similarites between answers in a questonnaire and recorded data there is in the Table 2.

Table 3. Results of the research for a manager no. 2

The way of setng goals and describing tasks

Optons

We set up goals as frst and then we described tasks.

We described tasks as frst and then we set up goals.

We acted basing on the organizatonal cycle.

Only one person set up goals and described tasks.

We acted basing on a “trial and error” rule.

Reality

x

Percepton

x

The way of sharing tasks among team members

Optons

We did not share.

Nearly everyone had the same tasks to do.

Some of members had diﬀerent tasks to do.

Nearly everyone had diﬀerent tasks to do.

Everyone had diﬀerent tasks to do.

Reality

x

Percepton

x

Frequency of goals changes

Optons

Never

Rarely

Sometmes

Ofen

Always

Reality

x

Percepton

x

number of goals changes

Optons

Goal 1

Goal 2

Goal 3

Goal 4

Goal 5

Reality

1

Not exist

Not exist

Not exist

Not exist

Percepton

2

No answer

No answer

No answer

No answer

Number of tasks described for goals

Optons

Goal 1

Goal 2

Goal 3

Goal 4

Goal 5

Reality

1

Not exist

Not exist

Not exist

Not exist

Percepton

1

No answer

No answer

No answer

No answer

Frequency of using tools by team members

Optons

Never

We viewed or changed the content very rarely.

We viewed or changed the content from tme to tme.

We viewed or changed the content very ofen.

We used tools all the tme when we were working.

Reality

x

Percepton

x

Level of diﬀerences between goals which were set as frst and their next versions

Optons

They were unchanged.

Very litle changes.

More less a half of goal features.

Very big changes.

They were completely changed.

Reality

x

Percepton

x

nﬂuence level of goals’ changes on changes of tasks’ features

Optons

Very low

Low

Middle

High

Very high

Reality

x

Percepton

x

Inﬂuence level of tasks’ changes on changes of goals’ features

Optons

Very low

Low

Middle

High

Very high

Reality

x

Percepton

x

The percepton and the real trajectory of the third manager diﬀers to a large extent. For example, we recorded a very chaotc way of managing. Nevertheless, the manager did not realize that he and his team acted this way (processes: setng goals and describing tasks). Another diﬀerence concerned the way of sharing tasks among team members. The manager thought some of members had diﬀerent tasks to do. On the grounds of recorded data we assessed that nearly everyone in his team had diﬀerent tasks to do (process: describing tasks). Next diﬀerence occurs in the feld of frequency of goals changes. Comparing to real facts the manager overestmated the number of the changes in goals’ features (process: setng goals).

What is really amazing in this case, the manager had completely diﬀerent knowledge about a number of goals he had set (process: setng goals). He pointed in the survey that he had set 5 diﬀerent goals during the project. In fact there were only two goals. He did not remember the number of goals changes as well. For the goal no. 1 he was conscious of 2 changes. However, the tool did not record any change. Moreover, he manager did not remember how many tasks were established in the project (process: describing tasks).

The next feld of the comparison also gives great discrepancy. We assessed that the manager viewed or changed the content very ofen. He notced it was very rarely. He also overestmated the inﬂuence level of tasks’ changes on changes of goals’ features (processes: describing tasks), although he underestmated the inﬂuence level of goals’ changes on changes of tasks’ features (setng tasks).

Table 4. Results of the research for a manager no. 3

The way of setng goals and describing tasks

Optons

We set up goals as frst and then we described tasks.

We described tasks as frst and then we set up goals.

We acted basing on the organizatonal cycle.

Only one person set up goals and described tasks.

We acted basing on a “trial and error” rule.

Reality

x

x

Percepton

x

The way of sharing tasks among team members

Optons

We did not share.

Nearly everyone had the same tasks to do.

Some of members had diﬀerent tasks to do.

Nearly everyone had diﬀerent tasks to do.

Everyone had diﬀerent tasks to do.

Reality

x

Percepton

x

Frequency of goals changes

Optons

Never

Rarely

Sometmes

Ofen

Always

Reality

x

Percepton

x

Number of goals changes

Optons

Goal 1

Goal 2

Goal 3

Goal 4

Goal 5

Reality

0

1

Not exist

Not exist

Not exist

Percepton

2

1

2

2

1

Number of tasks described for goals

Optons

Goal 1

Goal 2

Goal 3

Goal 4

Goal 5

Reality

8

Deleted

Not exist

Not exist

Not exist

Percepton

No answer

No answer

No answer

No answer

No answer

Frequency of using tools by team members

Optons

Never

We viewed or changed the content very rarely.

We viewed or changed the content from tme to tme.

We viewed or changed the content very ofen.

We used tools all the tme when we were working.

Reality

x

Percepton

x

Level of diﬀerences between goals which were set as frst and their next versions

Optons

They were unchanged.

Very litle changes.

More less a half of goal features.

Very big changes.

They were completely changed.

Reality

x

Percepton

x

Inﬂuence level of goals’ changes on changes of tasks’ features

Optons

Very low

Low

Middle

High

Very high

Reality

x

Percepton

x

Inﬂuence level of tasks’ changes on changes of goals’ features

Optons

Very low

Low

Middle

High

Very high

Reality

x

Percepton

x

Conclusion

An important element of decision-making, especially for managers is their percepton of their own actvites. We had a chance to do the research during which we compared real trajectories of actons (management processes) and managers’ percepton of them. Contributng to both the theoretcal background in process management and theories of human percepton in literatures, we found the eﬀects really astonishing.

Firstly, we proved the hypothesis H1 to be true. Managers are not conscious of most of their actvites in management process. Following the reasoning set forth by results of the observaton and the survey, we claim that managers as humans have big problems actng reasonably. We agreed with Latour and his theory of memory that we presented above (Latour 1999). According to the content of Tables 2, 3, 4 managers did not have memory located solely “in the mind”, but their percepton of actons they did resides in things, in relatons between things, and relatons between things and humans. In this case the most important things were the TH management tools. It is a contrary reasoning to common positvist approach in management science. This approach let us believe that a manager is mostly ratonal and conscious of his actvites.

Secondly, we also agreed with the hypothesis H2. Seemingly, it is obvious. However when we realize what consequences such a statement may cause in the organizaton, we could come to a conclusion that the higher level manager in the organizaton the higher level of his unconsciousness. Further research is needed to study these issues. We hope it will help to verify Austn & Vancouver four-steps of acton described above.

As an example of similar conclusions there are results that were conducted by Researchers in the European Commission’s Artfcial Development Approach to Presence Technologies (ADAPT). In their project they used a model of the human sense of presence on the grounds of a combinaton of senses like sight, hearing and touch. They used the torso of a 2-year-old child to understand human percepton to develop machines that can perceive and interact with their environments. To analyse the percepton process they developed a model of consciousness using artfcial objects as a part of a process of percepton. The results were amazing. As most theories describe consciousness as: (a) percepton, (b) cogniton, (c) acton, they achieved a reverse order: (a) acton, (b) cogniton, (c) percepton (Computerworld, 2006, p. 36). Our fndings are therefore close to such a conclusion about way of managing by managers who took part in our research.

Finally, it would be interestng to study diﬀerences in a bigger numbers of managers then in our research. Such research could also provide conclusions about the inﬂuence of tools on managers’ actons and let atempt to automatze management processes in order to replace a manager by a machine in the future.